Does "Diplomatic Immunity" cover stupidity?
A Qatari diplomat on a flight this week from D. C. to Denver decided to light up a smoke in an aircraft lavatory, and then joked to other passengers about trying to light his sneakers to cover the smell.
(Wonder if they were Lucky Strikes?)
As a result, this moron was joined by Federal Air-marshalls as his new seat-mates for the remainder of the flight, which was accompanied to the Denver airport by a couple of scrambled Air Force fighter jets.
The end result: Nothing’s going to happen this Arabian Mensa because he’s a Diplomat: he’s got immunity from prosecution.
No penalty.
No fine.
Oh, and other passengers on the plane were treated to searches to determine if this nucklehead had any “accomplices” on board, taking them up to five-hours to get off the plane and out of the airport. The authorities should have turned this jerky Qatari over to his travelling companions for an instant lesson in passenger diplomacy.
As a result, this moron was joined by Federal Air-marshalls as his new seat-mates for the remainder of the flight, which was accompanied to the Denver airport by a couple of scrambled Air Force fighter jets.
The end result: Nothing’s going to happen this Arabian Mensa because he’s a Diplomat: he’s got immunity from prosecution.
No penalty.
No fine.
Oh, and other passengers on the plane were treated to searches to determine if this nucklehead had any “accomplices” on board, taking them up to five-hours to get off the plane and out of the airport. The authorities should have turned this jerky Qatari over to his travelling companions for an instant lesson in passenger diplomacy.
Meanwhile, our Mensa-in-Chief is wanting to remove terms like “Islamic radicalism” from the national security strategy outline in a policy-shift away from terrorism.
Question, Mr. President: just how and why would you want to shift National Security Policy away from terrorism??
I pose this question after the President's signing of an agreement this week to limit our weapons, and a statement promising to not use nukes against any of our enemies who don't also have 'em. What kind of warped quid pro quo is that? So much for walking softly and carrying a big stick; we're whittling our Big Stick into a toothpick, and going to have to walk softly so we can keep from getting into fights.
Here’s the thinking inside the beltway, as expressed by a National Security Staffer named Pradeep Ramamurthy: "Do you want to think about the U.S. as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?"
Here’s the thinking inside the beltway, as expressed by a National Security Staffer named Pradeep Ramamurthy: "Do you want to think about the U.S. as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?"
Hey, Pradeep--do you want to have a nation left to do business with?
Here’s the fascinating part: To deliver that message, Mr. Obama's speechwriters have taken inspiration from former President Ronald Reagan. Irony, irony, better than macaroni.
Here’s the fascinating part: To deliver that message, Mr. Obama's speechwriters have taken inspiration from former President Ronald Reagan. Irony, irony, better than macaroni. Recall that while visiting communist China in 1984, the Reagonian talking points were on education, space exploration and scientific research. Mr. Reagan preached freedom and liberty—with no mentions of communism or democracy.
From this, Obamian Foreign Policy speechwriter, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, has deduced the Communists "didn't look up to the U.S. because we hated communism.”
No, Ben, it was because we stood for something, and they knew if they crossed us, Reagan wouldn't back down.
From this, Obamian Foreign Policy speechwriter, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, has deduced the Communists "didn't look up to the U.S. because we hated communism.”
No, Ben, it was because we stood for something, and they knew if they crossed us, Reagan wouldn't back down.
Can you say that about the Panderer-in-Chief now?
It’s fine to work on things far beyond the war on terrorism.
It’s fine to work on things far beyond the war on terrorism.
Ya gotta have a little vision, alright.
But we'd be well-served to remember that our enemies don't play by the same rules by which we'd like to think civilized wars are fought.
So long as evil men—and women—will stop at nothing to do harm to America, we would do well to not let our guard--or our weapons counts--down.
So long as evil men—and women—will stop at nothing to do harm to America, we would do well to not let our guard--or our weapons counts--down.
(All you foreign diplomats--especially of Middle Eastern extractions-- would do well to keep your Luckies in your luggage, and refrain from joking about shoe bombs while flying on American air carriers, too.
You people started this foolishness.)
Oh, that's not PC??
Tough.
You people started this foolishness.)
Oh, that's not PC??
Tough.
Can we at least send a bill for the F-16's to the Qatar government?
